DOCSLIB.ORG

Animal Ethics and the Political

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Animal Ethics and the Political This is a repository copy of Animal Ethics and the Political. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/103896/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Cochrane, A. orcid.org/0000-0002-3112-7210, Garner, R. and O'Sullivan, S. (2016) Animal Ethics and the Political. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. ISSN 1369-8230 https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2016.1194583 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy on 09/06/2016, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/13698230.2016.1194583. Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Alasdair Cochrane, Robert Garner and Siobhan O’Sullivan Animal Ethics and the Political (forthcoming in Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy) Some of the most important recent contributions to normative debates concerning our obligations to nonhuman animals appear to be somehow ‘political’.i Certainly, many of those contributions have come from those working in the field of political, rather than moral, philosophy. Furthermore, many of them also explicitly employ political language, concepts and ideas when making their prescriptions. For example, Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka (2011) have offered a model of animal rights centred around citizenship, sovereignty and denizenship. Martha Nussbaum (2006) has critiqued Rawlsian models of justice for excluding animals, and has argued that her capabilities approach provides an appropriate framework to outline our political relations with animals. Furthermore, Robert Garner (2013) has recently developed a theory of justice for animals that attempts to avoid idealistic utopian theorising and which is instead grounded in non-ideal theory. Still other theories have asked how ideas and debates familiar within political philosophy - including the scope of the liberal state (Smith 2012, Flanders 2014), the value of equality (O’Sullivan 2011), human rights (Cochrane 2013a), cosmopolitanism (Cooke 2014), global justice (Horta 2013), property rights (Hadley 2015), associative duties (Valentini 2014) and democratic representation (Driessen 2014, Garner forthcoming) - shape our obligations to nonhuman animals. In light of these contributions, some thinkers have claimed that we are witnessing a ‘political turn’ in animal ethics (Milligan 2015a, 2015b, Wissenburg and Scholsberg 2014, Wykoff 2014, Donaldson and Kymlicka forthcoming, Garner and O’Sullivan forthcoming, Woodhall and Garmendia da Trindade forthcoming). But do these various contributions represent a real and meaningful shift in emphasis from previous work in animal ethics? In order for them to comprise a genuine ‘political turn’, we propose that two things would need to be shown. First, 1 it would need to be demonstrated that the combined body of work has some unifying thread. That is to say, the contributions should possess common features of some sort, such as shared assumptions, normative commitments, methods or approaches. This is not to say that the contributions and their normative prescriptions cannot differ in important and substantial ways; it is simply to point out that for them to comprise a cohesive ‘turn’ in animal ethics, rather than simply amount to a collection of new but quite disparate theories, they must have some shared political feature or set of features which unite them. Second, for these contributions to mark a political turn, they would also have to be shown to be distinctive in some politically salient way from what we might call ‘traditional animal ethics’; a field which is most famously exemplified by the work of Peter Singer (1990) and Tom Regan (2004). At first blush, it might seem obvious that the theories and contributions referred to above do represent something that is both unified and distinctive. After all, as noted, they all employ political language and concepts in making their normative claims about our obligations to animals. However, if the use of political language and concepts was all that were required to make a contribution to animal ethics ‘political’, then we could safely say that animal ethics has been political since its inception. Donaldson and Kymlicka (forthcoming) have argued that animal ethicists have theorised the, ‘…moral rights of animals without drawing upon the categories and concepts of political theory’. But the truth is that the use of political categories and concepts has in fact been pervasive in the literature. To take just one obvious example: many argue quite reasonably that the very notion of ‘rights’ is political, since rights imply entitlements that can be coercively enforced by the state as a matter of justice (Nozick 1980, pp. 499-503, Steiner 2005, p. 460). And of course the concept of rights is an established feature of traditional theories of animal ethics: it is most obviously central in Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights (2004), but it is also evident in Singer’s utilitarian animal manifesto, Animal Liberation, in which he describes rights as a, ‘convenient political shorthand’ (1990, p. 8). Given the widespread use of political language in the animal ethics literature, of which we will provide more 2 examples below, we argue that if these more recent political contributions to the field are to be regarded as unified and distinctive, a more specific and substantive essential feature needs to be identified. This paper, then, is devoted to exploring whether any such unifying and distinctive feature exists. We take as our starting point certain characteristics discussed by Tony Milligan, which he describes as ‘overlapping commitments’ of the political turn (2015a, p. 155, 2015b, p. 7).ii Three of the commitments Milligan identifies can be dispensed with relatively quickly on the basis that they straightforwardly fail to meet the conditions of being unifying and distinctive. They comprise: a focus on the tension between the treatment of animals and liberal values; a commitment to interest-based rights; and consideration of animal interests as part of the common good. A focus on the tension between liberal values and the treatment of animals is not unifying, and is barely discussed in key recent political texts, such as Zoopolis (2011). That feature is also not particularly distinctive, with Tom Regan devoting an entire section of The Case for Animal Rights to the issue of how our obligations to animals, and in particular our duty to be vegetarian, conflict with the human interest in liberty (2004, pp. 331-334, see also Clark 1987). A commitment to interest-based rights is also not unifying, with only a few recent political texts explicitly invoking them (Cochrane 2012). Furthermore, nor is such a commitment distinctive since the use of interest-based rights has an extremely long history in animal ethics (Feinberg 1974). Finally, consideration of animal interests as part of the common good cannot be regarded as unifying.iii In fact, it is only explicitly referred to in one recent work, Donaldson and Kymlicka’s Zoopolis, and even in that theory, the only animals whose interests count as part of that common good are domesticated animals (p. 101). As such, this paper focuses on the remaining and best candidates for comprising the essential feature of the political turn. Those candidates are: a focus on relations and positive duties; the offering of feasible and pragmatic prescriptions; and the avoidance of first principles 3 (Milligan 2015a, p. 155, Milligan 2015b, p. 7). We find that none of these candidates comprise a ‘unifying thread’ of the political turn, and are in fact contested by key theorists working in the field. We also find that none of these features is particularly distinctive, and each has in fact been prevalent in a number of works within traditional animal ethics. Indeed, on this basis we argue that traditional animal ethics should be regarded as more political than some proponents of the ‘turn’ have suggested (for example, Donaldson and Kymlicka forthcoming). However, in the final substantive section of the paper, we identify one key focus of these recent political contributions which both unifies them, and which makes them important and original additions to the normative debate relating to human-animal relations. That focus is on justice. While other theorists (Wykoff 2014) – including Milligan (2015a, 2015b) - have also claimed that these theories offer something novel by their focus on justice, we argue that they have not accurately captured what that focus amounts to. For the crucial unifying and distinctive feature of these contributions – and what can properly be said to mark them out as
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Foucault and Animals
    Foucault and Animals Edited by Matthew Chrulew, Curtin University Dinesh Joseph Wadiwel, The University of Sydney LEIDEN | BOSTON For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV Contents Foreword vii List of Contributors viii Editors’ Introduction: Foucault and Animals 1 Matthew Chrulew and Dinesh Joseph Wadiwel PART 1 Discourse and Madness 1 Terminal Truths: Foucault’s Animals and the Mask of the Beast 19 Joseph Pugliese 2 Chinese Dogs and French Scapegoats: An Essay in Zoonomastics 37 Claire Huot 3 Violence and Animality: An Investigation of Absolute Freedom in Foucault’s History of Madness 59 Leonard Lawlor 4 The Order of Things: The Human Sciences are the Event of Animality 87 Saïd Chebili (Translated by Matthew Chrulew and Jefffrey Bussolini) PART 2 Power and Discipline 5 “Taming the Wild Profusion of Existing Things”? A Study of Foucault, Power, and Human/Animal Relationships 107 Clare Palmer 6 Dressage: Training the Equine Body 132 Natalie Corinne Hansen For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV vi CONTENTS 7 Foucault’s Menagerie: Cock Fighting, Bear Baiting, and the Genealogy of Human-Animal Power 161 Alex Mackintosh PART 3 Science and Biopolitics 8 The Birth of the Laboratory Animal: Biopolitics, Animal Experimentation, and Animal Wellbeing 193 Robert G. W. Kirk 9 Animals as Biopolitical Subjects 222 Matthew Chrulew 10 Biopower, Heterogeneous Biosocial Collectivities and Domestic Livestock Breeding 239 Lewis Holloway and Carol Morris PART 4 Government and Ethics 11 Apum Ordines: Of Bees and Government 263 Craig McFarlane 12 Animal Friendship as a Way of Life: Sexuality, Petting and Interspecies Companionship 286 Dinesh Joseph Wadiwel 13 Foucault and the Ethics of Eating 317 Chloë Taylor Afterword 339 Paul Patton Index 345 For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV CHAPTER 8 The Birth of the Laboratory Animal: Biopolitics, Animal Experimentation, and Animal Wellbeing Robert G.
    [Show full text]
  • It's a (Two-)Culture Thing: the Laterial Shift to Liberation
    Animal Issues, Vol 4, No. 1, 2000 It's a (Two-)Culture Thing: The Lateral Shift to Liberation Barry Kew rom an acute and, some will argue, a harsh, a harsh, fantastic or even tactically naive F naive perspective, this article examines examines animal liberation, vegetarianism vegetarianism and veganism in relation to a bloodless culture ideal. It suggests that the movement's repeated anomalies, denial of heritage, privileging of vegetarianism, and other concessions to bloody culture, restrict rather than liberate the full subversionary and revelatory potential of liberationist discourse, and with representation and strategy implications. ‘Only the profoundest cultural needs … initially caused adult man [sic] to continue to drink cow milk through life’.1 In The Social Construction of Nature, Klaus Eder develops a useful concept of two cultures - the bloody and the bloodless. He understands the ambivalence of modernity and the relationship to nature as resulting from the perpetuation of a precarious equilibrium between the ‘bloodless’ tradition from within Judaism and the ‘bloody’ tradition of ancient Greece. In Genesis, killing entered the world after the fall from grace and initiated a complex and hierarchically-patterned system of food taboos regulating distance between nature and culture. But, for Eder, it is in Israel that the reverse process also begins, in the taboo on killing. This ‘civilizing’ process replaces the prevalent ancient world practice of 1 Calvin. W. Schwabe, ‘Animals in the Ancient World’ in Aubrey Manning and James Serpell, (eds), Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives (Routledge, London, 1994), p.54. 1 Animal Issues, Vol 4, No. 1, 2000 human sacrifice by animal sacrifice, this by sacrifices of the field, and these by money paid to the sacrificial priests.2 Modern society retains only a very broken connection to the Jewish tradition of the bloodless sacrifice.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Personhood for Animals and the Intersectionality of the Civil & Animal Rights Movements
    Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality Volume 4 Issue 2 Article 5 2016 Free Tilly?: Legal Personhood for Animals and the Intersectionality of the Civil & Animal Rights Movements Becky Boyle Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijlse Part of the Law Commons Publication Citation Becky Boyle, Free Tilly?: Legal Personhood for Animals and the Intersectionality of the Civil & Animal Rights Movements, 4 Ind. J. L. & Soc. Equality 169 (2016). This Student Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality Volume 4, Issue 2 FREE TILLY?: LEGAL PERSONHOOD FOR ANIMALS AND THE INTERSECTIONALITY OF THE CIVIL & ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENTS BECKY BOYLE INTRODUCTION In February 2012, the District Court for the Southern District of California heard Tilikum v. Sea World, a landmark case for animal legal defense.1 The organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a suit as next friends2 of five orca whales demanding their freedom from the marine wildlife entertainment park known as SeaWorld.3 The plaintiffs—Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka, and Ulises—were wild born and captured to perform at SeaWorld’s Shamu Stadium.4 They sought declaratory and injunctive relief for being held by SeaWorld in violation of slavery and involuntary servitude provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment.5 It was the first court in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Death-Free Dairy? the Ethics of Clean Milk
    J Agric Environ Ethics https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9723-x ARTICLES Death-Free Dairy? The Ethics of Clean Milk Josh Milburn1 Accepted: 10 January 2018 Ó The Author(s) 2018. This article is an open access publication Abstract The possibility of ‘‘clean milk’’—dairy produced without the need for cows—has been championed by several charities, companies, and individuals. One can ask how those critical of the contemporary dairy industry, including especially vegans and others sympathetic to animal rights, should respond to this prospect. In this paper, I explore three kinds of challenges that such people may have to clean milk: first, that producing clean milk fails to respect animals; second, that humans should not consume dairy products; and third, that the creation of clean milk would affirm human superiority over cows. None of these challenges, I argue, gives us reason to reject clean milk. I thus conclude that the prospect is one that animal activists should both welcome and embrace. Keywords Milk Á Food technology Á Biotechnology Á Animal rights Á Animal ethics Á Veganism Introduction A number of businesses, charities, and individuals are working to develop ‘‘clean milk’’—dairy products created by biotechnological means, without the need for cows. In this paper, I complement scientific work on this possibility by offering the first normative examination of clean dairy. After explaining why this question warrants consideration, I consider three kinds of objections that vegans and animal activists may have to clean milk. First, I explore questions about the use of animals in the production of clean milk, arguing that its production does not involve the violation of & Josh Milburn [email protected] http://josh-milburn.com 1 Department of Politics, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK 123 J.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics and Animals Fall 2020
    Ethics and Animals Fall 2020 Description This course examines the morality of our treatment of nonhuman animals. We start with a survey of moral theory. Do animals have moral status? Do we have a right to harm or kill some animals in order to benefit or save others? We consider these questions from a variety of moral perspectives, including consequentialism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, and feminist ethics. We then apply these ideas to different kinds of animal use. For example, what is the morality of our treatment of animals in food, research, captivity, and the wild? Finally, we will explore ethical questions that arise for animal activists, including about what ends they should pursue, what means they should take towards those ends, and how they should relate to other social movements. General Information Time: T 5:00{7:30 ET Place: online Instructor: Name: Jeff Sebo Email: jeff[email protected] Office: online Office Hours: M 3-5pm ET 1 Readings The required books for this class are: Julia Driver, Ethics: The Fundamentals; Lori Gruen, Ethics and Animals; and Gary Francione & Robert Garner, The Animal Rights Debate. These books are available online, and the Gruen and Francione & Garner books are also available for free at the NYU library website. All readings not from the required books will be posted on the course website. Grading Your grades will be determined as follows: • Papers (75%): You will write three papers explaining and evaluating the ideas and arguments discussed in class. You will email this paper to [email protected]. For each paper, you can either create your own prompt (provided that you clear it with us in advance) or select from prompts that we create.
    [Show full text]
  • Nozick's Libertarian Critique of Regan
    68 BETWEEN THE SPECIES Nozick’s Libertarian Critique of Regan ABSTRACT Robert Nozick’s oft-quoted review of Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights levels a range of challenges to Regan’s philosophy. Many commentators have focused on Nozick’s putative defense of speciesism, but this has led to them overlooking other aspects of the critique. In this paper, I draw attention to two. First is Nozick’s criti- cism of Regan’s political theory, which is best understood relative to Nozick’s libertarianism. Nozick’s challenge invites the possibility of a libertarian account of animal rights – which is not as oxymo- ronic as it may first sound. Second is Nozick’s criticism of Regan’s axiological theory, which is best understood relative to Nozick’s own axiological inegalitarianism. While Nozick’s axiology has distaste- ful consequences, it should not be dismissed out-of-hand. Nozick’s challenges to Regan – and Nozick’s wider animal ethics – are rich and original, warranting attention from contemporary theorists for reasons beyond mere historical interest. Josh Milburn University of York Volume 21, Issue 1 Spring 2018 http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/ 69 Josh Milburn Tom Regan published The Case for Animal Rights (hereaf- ter, The Case) in 1983, spawning a literature of responses, cri- tiques, developments and applications. It continues to have con- siderable influence on philosophical literature in animal ethics to this day – as this special issue demonstrates. Regan belongs on a short list of the most influential and significant normative philosophers of the 21st century. Another philosopher who un- doubtedly belongs on this list is Robert Nozick, most famous as the author of the 1974 Anarchy, State, and Utopia (hereafter, ASU), in which he offers a right libertarian theory of justice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Covid Pandemic, 'Pivotal' Moments, And
    Animal Studies Journal Volume 10 Number 1 Article 10 2021 The Covid Pandemic, ‘Pivotal’ Moments, and Persistent Anthropocentrism: Interrogating the (Il)legitimacy of Critical Animal Perspectives Paula Arcari Edge Hill University Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/asj Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Critical and Cultural Studies Commons, Politics and Social Change Commons, and the Social Influence and oliticalP Communication Commons Recommended Citation Arcari, Paula, The Covid Pandemic, ‘Pivotal’ Moments, and Persistent Anthropocentrism: Interrogating the (Il)legitimacy of Critical Animal Perspectives, Animal Studies Journal, 10(1), 2021, 186-239. Available at:https://ro.uow.edu.au/asj/vol10/iss1/10 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] The Covid Pandemic, ‘Pivotal’ Moments, and Persistent Anthropocentrism: Interrogating the (Il)legitimacy of Critical Animal Perspectives Abstract Situated alongside, and intertwined with, climate change and the relentless destruction of ‘wild’ nature, the global Covid-19 pandemic should have instigated serious reflection on our profligate use and careless treatment of other animals. Widespread references to ‘pivotal moments’ and the need for a reset in human relations with ‘nature’ appeared promising. However, important questions surrounding the pandemic’s origins and its wider context continue to be ignored and, as a result, this moment has proved anything but pivotal for animals. To explore this disconnect, this paper undertakes an analysis of dominant Covid discourses across key knowledge sites comprising mainstream media, major organizations, academia, and including prominent animal advocacy organizations. Drawing on the core tenets of Critical Animal Studies, the concept of critical animal perspectives is advanced as a way to assess these discourses and explore the illegitimacy of alternative ways of thinking about animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Critical Perspectives on Animals in Society
    Proceedings of the Conference Critical Perspectives on Animals in Society held at the University of Exeter, UK 10 March 2012 © CPAS convenors, editors and individual named contributors, 2013 Some rights reserved Copyright in contributions to these proceedings rests with their respective authors. Copyright to the overall collection and arrangement and to any other material in this document rests with the convenors of CPAS and the editors of its proceedings. In the spirit of open-access publishing and with a commitment to the intellectual commons, reuse and distribution of these proceedings for non-commercial purposes is permitted and encouraged, under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution± NonCommercial±NoDerivs 2.0 UK: England & Wales licence, which can be read at: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk/ Amongst other things, this licence requires that you attribute material you reproduce to its author, and make clear to those you share it with that they too may reproduce it under the terms of the licence. Anything outside the licence, especially commercial use, requires the express permission of the editors and conference convenors, or of individual authors. Requests to the former should be directed to: [email protected] Edited by Chris Calvert and Jessica Gröling Contents Introduction by the editors 5 Chris Calvert and Jessica Gröling — Contributions in brief — About CPAS — Acknowledgements — Conference programme Campaigning techniques 11 Keynote address by Dr Richard D. Ryder Animal rights: moral crusade or social
    [Show full text]
  • Syllabus Is Subject to Change
    Photo: JoAnne McArthur Ethics and Animals1 Fall 2015 ANST-UA 400.001 Descripon This course is an introduc<on to the ethics of our rela<onships to nonhuman animals, from historical and contemporary standpoints. We will examine the ways animals have been denied and granted moral status in philosophical tradi<ons and in prac<ce, the significance of the human/animal difference, and what “speciesism” means. We will then survey the main philosophical theories arguing about the treatment of animals, and we will cover various prac<cal issues surrounding our use of, or concern for, animals. We will address the morality of raising and killing animals for food, animal experimenta<on, keeping animals in cap<vity for entertainment or science, keeping them as pets, managing urban wildlife, reducing suffering in the wild, wildlife conserva<on, etc. We will ask whether animals should have legal rights, and which are the best strategies to protect them. There are no prior requirements in philosophy, animal studies, ethics, or any other field, except for a genuine willingness to confront with a variety of views, concepts, arguments, and hot topics. Given the controversial nature of the subject, student par<cipa<on, based on careful argumenta<on and respecRul apprecia<on of different views, is strongly encouraged; no specific view will be favored. Praccal Informaon Time: Tues. 5:00-7:30pm Place: Global Center for Academic and Spiritual Life, #269 Instructor: Nicolas Delon Email: [email protected] Office: 285 Mercer st, #1006 Office hours: T & W 9-11:30am (reserve slot: goo.gl/0tl38l), or by appointment Grader: Sharisse Kanet, [email protected], office hours by appointment 1 This syllabus is subject to change.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Law & Policy Program
    HARVARD ANIMAL LAW & POLICY PROGRAM HARVARD LAW SCHOOL Annual Report Fiscal Year 2017 July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Part One: Report of Activities 2 A. Summary of the Academic Year 2016–2017 2 1. Executive Summary 2 2. Research, Scholarship, and Activities 3 a. Program Mission and Areas of Inquiry 3 b. Research, Scholarship, and Project Activities 3 i. Professor Kristen Stilt 3 ii. Academic Fellow, Delcianna Winders 4 iii. Policy Fellow, Alice DiConcetto 5 iv. Farmed Animal Law & Policy Fellow, Peter Brandt 5 v. Graduate Scholar, Jessica Eisen 6 c. Conferences 7 i. The Animal Welfare Act at Fifty Conference 7 ii. The Ivy League Vegan Conference at Harvard University 8 d. Academic Workshops 9 i. The Animal Welfare Act at Fifty Workshop 9 ii. Animal Agriculture from the Middle East to Asia Workshop 9 e. Other Events 11 3. Contributions to HLS Teaching Program 12 4. Participation of HLS Students in Program Activities 14 a. ALPP Student Travel Grants 14 b. Mentoring and Guidance 14 c. ALPP Student Writing Prize 16 5. Faculty Participation 17 6. Other Contributions to the HLS Community 17 a. Faculty Director, Kristen Stilt 18 b. Executive Director, Chris Green 18 7. Law Reform and Advocacy 19 a. Faculty Director, Kristen Stilt 19 b. Executive Director, Chris Green 21 c. Academic Fellow, Delcianna Winders 23 8. Connections to the Profession & Public Outreach 25 a. Faculty Director, Kristen Stilt 26 b. Executive Director, Chris Green 27 9. Collaboration with Other Schools and Departments at HLS & Harvard University 30 a.
    [Show full text]
  • Wrenn Colostate 0053A 13455.Pdf
    DISSERTATION PROFESSIONALIZATION, FACTIONALISM, AND SOCIAL MOVEMENT SUCCESS: A CASE STUDY ON NONHUMAN ANIMAL RIGHTS MOBILIZATION Submitted by Corey Lee Wrenn Department of Sociology In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Spring 2016 Doctoral Committee: Advisor: Michael Carolan Lynn Hempel Michael Lacy Marcela Velasco Copyright by Corey Lee Wrenn 2016 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT PROFESSIONALIZATION, FACTIONALISM, AND SOCIAL MOVEMENT SUCCESS: A CASE STUDY ON NONHUMAN ANIMAL RIGHTS MOBILIZATION This project explores the intra-movement interactions between professionalized and radical factions in the social movement arena using a content analysis of movement literature produced by the Nonhuman Animal rights movement between 1980 and 2013. Professionalized factions with greater symbolic capital are positioned to monopolize claimsmaking, disempower competing factions, and replicate their privilege and legitimacy. Radical factions, argued to be important variables in a movement’s health, are thus marginalized, potentially to the detriment of movement success and the constituency for whom they advocate. Specifically, this study explores the role of professionalization in manipulating the tactics and goals of social movement organizations and how the impacts of professionalization may be aggravating factional boundaries. Boundary maintenance may prevent critical discourse within the movement, and it may also provoke the “mining” of radical claimsmaking for symbols that have begun to resonate within the movement and the public. Analysis demonstrates a number of important consequences to professionalization that appear to influence the direction of factional disputes, and ultimately, the shape of the movement. Results indicate some degree of factional fluidity, but professionalization does appear to be a dominant force on movement trajectories by concentrating power in the social change space.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Essay Lisa Johnson Animals, Law, and Power
    H U M a N I M A L I A 11:1 Review Essay Lisa Johnson Animals, Law, and Power Robert Garner and Siobhan O'Sullivan, eds. The Political Turn in Animal Ethics . London: Rowman and Littlefield International, 2016. ₤85.00 hc; ₤29.95 pb; ₤29.95 e- book. Those who wish to explore animal ethics from a political perspective will be interested in the essays included in The Political Turn in Animal Ethics , edited by Robert Garner and Siobhan O’Sullivan. The “political turn” refers to the political turn in animal ethics, as well as the “animal turn” in political theory. Taken together, the 10 essays and editorial 142 introduction in this collection suggest new possibilities for creating a better world for animals. For example, some contributors focus on what the state should or could do, while others examine humans’ roles — as political actors — in interacting with state and institutional positions. Most of the essays create a basis from which we can seriously begin to address power structures that impact animals’ lives. The editors’ goals are twofold: to determine the parameters of the political turn and to determine the extent to which this shift represents a truly new direction in animal ethics. Though establishing firm topical parameters seems unlikely due to the ever- expanding array of ethical concerns raised by our interactions with and effects on animals, the questions undertaken by these essays are addressed through the familiar methods and theoretical lenses of political theory. So we might say that the first goal has been met as to manner and substance of approach, but not as to subject matter.
    [Show full text]